Tzipi Livni is preparing to end talks with Syria, Telegraph, 2008-09-13: "The woman who is on course to become Israel's next prime minister is preparing to end fledgling peace talks with Syria unless it cuts its ties with Iran and the militant Hizbollah group. She is determined to ensure that nobody assumes that the presence of a woman at Israel's helm might leave the country more susceptible to attack."

The indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel that began last May have gone as far as they can. Their purpose – to break the ice between the two states after eight years of not talking, and to test one another's resolve over certain issues – has been achieved. Now, Syrian President Bashar Assad wants to move forward, as evidenced in his proposal to Israel for direct peace talks, which he introduced last week at a four-way summit in Damascus involving Syria, Turkey, France and Qatar.

But Assad knows there are still two big uncertainties surrounding the prospects of a historic peace deal with the Israelis: the position of the next U.S. administration and the results of a possible Israeli election. While Assad is grateful for the role Turkey has played so far in hosting four rounds of negotiations (a fifth is scheduled for September 18-19, according to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan), and for France's pledge of help in any direct Syrian-Israeli talks, he is only interested in a peace agreement with Israel if it is mediated by the United States.

An agreement endorsed by Washington would not only guarantee the return of the Golan to Syria (in exchange for a long-term security deal with Israel), but also, and perhaps more significantly, end Syria's isolation in the world. The most important lesson Bashar Assad learned from his father is that good relations with Washington, more than any other foreign capital, serve Syria's strategic interests. But, until a new U.S. administration is in place, he knows there's little point in proceeding with the direct negotiations he's proposing. ……..

WASHINGTON – "There can't be true peace if Syria continues to align with the Iranian regime and with terror groups," such as Lebanon's Hizbullah, Israeli Ambassador to Washington Sallai Meridor told The Washington Times this week. ….

"By far, the first reason to engage with the Syrians is to explore whether there is a chance for a strategic U-turn, and to have them separated from their special relationship with Iran and stopping their harboring, encouraging and supporting of terror," he was quoted by the Washington Times as saying.

According to Meridor, the indirect talks, which are being facilitated by Turkey, have yet to yield any positive results, but "it's so important that for us it was worth trying to explore"….

The envoy said Israel is prepared to make "very painful compromises" in exchange for Syria's breaking away from Iran's influence, but declined to be more specific.

Asked by The Washington Times whether the United States has advised or otherwise contributed to Israel's reachout effort, the ambassador said that nothing of what Israel has done so far was a surprise to Washington.

Meridor continued to say that the prospect of Iran building a nuclear weapon is the most serious security threat in the Middle East today. "The window of opportunity" to deter that threat "is narrowing but not yet closed," he said….

…… In announcing that the government had reached its goal of 12,000 Iraqi refugees for this fiscal year, Ambassador James B. Foley, the secretary of state's special coordinator for refugees, told reporters that he expected to exceed that total in the coming year.

"I think you'll see the U.S. government admitting over the course of fiscal 2009 tens of thousands of Iraqis," Foley said.

Advocacy groups were not satisfied with the new goal. Noting that the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has reported that 90,000 Iraqi refugees in Syria, Jordan and other neighboring countries are seeking resettlement, said Kristele Younes of Refugees International, "The U.S. certainly met its goal for this year, but next year's target of resettling 17,000 Iraqi refugees falls far short of what is needed."

Foley said that in the coming year, he expects that most of the refugees coming to the United States — who are approved to do so because they face threats if they return to their homes — will come from Syria rather than Jordan. He also said he expects about 2,500 to 3,000 will come from Baghdad. …..

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Iraq President Jalal Talabani told US President George W. Bush on Wednesday that Iran and Syria, long targets of US blame over deadly unrest in Iraq, now pose "no problem."

"I'm glad to tell you Mr President that our relations with our neighbors is improved very well with Turkey, with Syria, with Iran with the Arab countries," Talabani said as he met with Bush at the White House.

"The relation is normal now and we have no problem with any of those countries. In contrary, many many new ambassadors are coming to our country from Arab countries," Talabani said.

Washington has for years accused Syria of at the very least turning a blind eye to foreign fighters crossing into Iraq to battle US-led forces, and has alleged Iranian support for elements that target coalition troops.

But a senior US official told reporters on Tuesday, after Bush announced a modest drawdown of US forces in Iraq over the coming months, that Iran may have changed tack on its strife-ravaged neighbor.

…. Aridi, a senior member of the Lebanese Democratic Party, was assassinated in a car bombing on Wednesday in the first attack against a pro-Syrian politician since a string of bombings targeted mainly anti-Syrian figures. Syria on Thursday denounced the murder of a pro-Syrian Lebanese politician as a terrorist act aimed at undermining security in its neighbour ahead of planned multi-party reconciliation talks.

His murder came days ahead of national reconciliation talks due to take place next week, as a follow up to a power-sharing agreement struck by feuding politicians in May after deadly sectarian fighting….

Geagea : The assassination of Aridi is a continuation of the string of assassinations that started over 3 years ago. Wiam Wahhab said that he did not participate in Aridi’s funeral because of security concerns.

Jumblatt accused Hariri of attempting to build a militia under the guise of security firms,…and allying with Islamic extremists … and said it was a mistake…" (The Article in Arabic)

"…Jumblatt was quoted as saying that Lebanese must endure Hezbollah's sizable arsenal of weapons, which the March 14 coalition and the U.S. and Israel want to eliminate. He also declared that he makes his most inflammatory anti-Syrian remarks because "politics requires it."

Comments by a leading Lebanese politician published Thursday have stirred speculation that he is considering a break with the country's U.S.-backed political alliance, which is locked in a power struggle with the camp led by the pro-Iranian movement Hezbollah.

Walid Jumblatt, the colorful and outspoken leader of Lebanon's Druze community, accused his coalition's leader, Saad Hariri, of trying to build a militia and allying with Islamic extremists. In comments to a newspaper, he lampooned Hariri's leadership skills, likening his U.S.-backed Future Movement to a "troop of camels all walking together."

The headline in the pro-opposition Al-Akhbar newspaper on Tuesday described the reconciliation in Tripoli as an event that "broke" the authority of the Hariri camp. The statement was typically partisan. It was also, as they say, correct but not true. Inter-Sunni dynamics in the North are changing, perhaps to Saad Hariri's momentary disadvantage, but it would be a mistake to write off his supremacy in the district just yet.

In recent weeks, the implications of the tension in Tripoli have alarmed a number of Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt. ….

…. there remains sympathy for the Hariri family in the North, and substantial enmity toward Syria. Saad Hariri's political destiny may well be determined by what happens in Tripoli, a city not his but that he may soon have to make his.

Russia said Friday it was renovating a Syrian port for use by the Russian fleet, signaling an effort to establish a firmer foothold in the Mediterranean at a time of tensions with the United States over Georgia…..

"It is much more advantageous to have such a facility than to return ships patrolling the Mediterranean to their home bases," former Black Sea Fleet commander Adm. Eduard Baltin said, according to the Russian Interfax-AVN service.

The former first deputy commander the Russian Navy, Adm. Igor Kasatonov, said Tartus "is of great geopolitical significance considering that it is the only such Russian facility abroad."…….

Security expert David Hartwell cautioned against reading too much into a connection between the Russia-Syria ties and the Georgia crisis.

"Talks about naval cooperation have been ongoing for several years. It would wrong to suggest this is a reaction to NATO's action in Georgia," said Hartwell, Middle East and North Africa editor for Jane's Country Risk in London.

The Tartus move may be as much aimed at placating Syria's appeals for greater cooperation.

Assad made a visit to Moscow last month, and before the trip told the Russian business daily Kommersant that Syria was "ready to cooperate with Russia in any way," including discussing deploying missile defense systems on Syrian territory.

Assad also said Syria was ready to help Moscow respond to the planned U.S. missile defense shield in Europe, although the Russians have not asked for such help, the newspaper said.

Syria's government later denied that Assad had made such an offer — apparently wary of overly antagonizing the United States.

AP: "…Friday's announcement was the first tangible sign of any new cooperation. The Itar-Tass news agency said Friday that a vessel from Russia's Black Sea fleet had begun restoring facilities at Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus for use by the Russian military.

…. The war in Georgia has reinforced Russia's reentry into Middle Eastern politics. The key question relating to the impact of Russia's new role relates to the future dynamics of Russian-American relations. If with a new US administration, Russian-American relations take a turn for the worse and the two powers revert to cold war confrontation in central Europe, central Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere, the region will suffer from another layer of tensions and escalations. If however, a new administration in Washington reads the warnings present in the Georgia confrontation and succeeds in building a new partnership with a stronger Russia, then Russian influence in the Middle East can contribute to resolving open wounds, such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq; finding a soft landing for the Iranian nuclear crisis; shepherding forward the Syrian-Israeli peace talks, and help creating the conditions for stability in the Middle East.

The recent summit between France, Turkey and Qatar in Damascus, is an important example of the relevance of politics and diplomacy…. The Middle East should be a focus of international cooperation not an arena for global competition and conflict.

…"It is a very important discovery," said Jean-Marie Le Tensorer, who leads the Swiss side of the team. He said it is the oldest camel bone to be unearthed in the Middle East and probably worldwide…

Le Tensorer said the find also confirms that the origin of the camel is the Arabian desert, from which it migrated to other parts of the world…. "Until now, the evolution of camels has been absolutely unknown in the world," Le Tensorer said. "In central Syria, we have several sites with a long stratigraphic sequence — about 1 million years. We can see the evolution of these animals."…

Al-Sakhel, who is also head of the Syrian National Museum, said the site is an archaeological treasure trove and contains many layers that are the oldest of the prehistoric era in Syria. Last year, the same mission discovered the bones of a giant camel in Syria dating back 100,000 years.

Kuoni, Britain's leading long-haul tour operator, added Syria alongside Egypt, Jordan, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, effectively putting Syria on the mass-market map for the first time…..

Age Concern Travel Insurance has found that the highest travel insurance claims are made from holidaymakers who have visited Mexico: £3,028. The next highest claims came from the United States (£2,854) ….

EgyptWill the dam burst? , Economist: With most of its people struggling, and reform blocked, Egypt faces an uncertain and possibly dangerous future

…. Aref Dalila, 65, sits in his simple flat contemplating his first month of freedom. He was released on August 7 after spending six of his seven years of detention in solitary confinement and suffering from poor health. In 2001 he was among activists buoyed by a sense of optimism as Bashar al-Assad, the young, new president was feeling his way into office. Such was mood that the period was dubbed the Damascus spring.

But a bleak reality check hit in September of that year as Mr Dalila and nine others were rounded up in a government crackdown.

“It’s difficult to stay seven years without any reason, only because you do your duty, nothing more,” he says. “Where is the law, where is the constitution?” …. Few activists expect that situation to improve in spite of thawing international relations. ….

Yet activists point to other Middle East states such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which have poor human rights records but enjoy strong ties with the west – even adding Libya to the list after Condoleezza Rice’s visit to the north African state last week – to argue that international relations are one thing, internal reform another.

The best they hope for is some easing of the internal pressure as the regime feels less threatened externally, says an activist who – like hundreds of others – is banned from travelling outside the country.

“In 2006 it became clear to Bashar Assad that human rights was not important to these [western] countries, he has more important points [for the west] … the situation in Lebanon, the situation in Iraq,” says Ammar Qurabi, …

When Mr Sarkozy was asked about human rights during his Damascus visit, he said two Syrians had been released from detention. But activists smile wryly….

AMMAN – A Palestinian-born woman academic pleaded not guilty on Tuesday at the beginning of her trial for allegedly insulting King Abdullah II and discriminating against students of Jordanian origin.

The state security court accused Zuhryeh Abdul Haq, 60, a vice dean for education at the private Israa University, of "harassing students of Jordanian origin, mocking their accent, making fun of their traditional (red-and-white) keffiyeh (headdress) and calling them retarded."

Abdul Haq, born in the West Bank city of Nablus, "prevented her colleagues from hanging the king's pictures inside their offices, saying 'I am the king, I am the state,'" according to the charge sheet…..

Home News World News Middle East IsraelTzipi Livni is preparing to end talks with Syria if she becomes Israel’s new prime minister
The woman who is on course to become Israel’s next prime minister is preparing to end fledgling peace talks with Syria unless it cuts its ties with Iran and the militant Hizbollah group.

By Carolynne Wheeler in Tel Aviv
Last Updated: 5:31PM BST 13 Sep 2008

Tzipi Livni listens intently to outgoing prime minister Ehud Olmert Photo: EPA
Tzipi Livni, who is expected to win the ruling Kadima party’s leadership race despite a growing challenge from her main opponent, is using the last days of her campaign before Wednesday’s primary to broadcast a strong message to the Arab world.

She is determined to ensure that nobody assumes that the presence of a woman at Israel’s helm might leave the country more susceptible to attack.

Ms Livni has made plain that she is likely to end the indirect talks with Syria, brokered by Turkey and made public only in May, bringing to an abrupt halt one of the few innovations of the outgoing prime minister, Ehud Olmert.

In her harshest statement yet on the matter, during a rare interview with the Al-Arabiya television network, Ms Livni said last week she has “no need to meet with Syrian representatives” as long as the country continues to allow weapons smuggling to Hizbollah in neighbouring Lebanon.

She has previously warned that in her view Syria has used the opening of talks with Israel to bolster its international standing, after years of pariah status, without showing serious intent to cut ties with either Hizbollah or Iran – both sworn and deadly enemies of Israel.

“This is a point in which we need to find out whether Syria is serious in terms of peace,” she said. “In order to show that they are serious enough, they need to stop what they are doing right now, in supporting all these terrorist activities in the region.”

Her harder line on Syria was a rare moment of toughness in an otherwise low-key campaign, despite the corruption controversy surrounding Mr Olmert, US pressure to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians and the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Ms Livni has portrayed herself as the only leader who can maintain the party’s fragile government coalition and avoid early elections, while toughening her position on Syria and Iran.

She has pledged to continue talks with Palestinian leaders but cautions that rushing could lead to a breakdown and more violence. She has also promised that Israel will not hesitate to launch a military strike on Iran if sanctions fail to curb its nuclear programme.

“She is not trying to be nice, or to please anyone,” said Amira Dotan, a retired general and fellow Kadima MP who shares Ms Livni’s philosophy on Syria. “Courage is the ability to speak up and voice your voice, even if your voice is not bass or tenor, but soprano.”

However, in the closing stages of the campaign wildly varying polls have indicated that the clear 20 point lead that Ms Livni enjoyed among party members three weeks ago may be narrowing – with some polls suggesting that her lead may have dropped slightly and one indicating a drop to about six per cent.

It has not been an easy fight against Shaul Mofaz, her nearest rival. Mr Mofaz, the transportation minister, is a former defence minister and chief of staff for the Israeli army. Two other candidates, Avi Dichter, who is minister of public security, and Meir Sheetrit, who is minister of the interior, have fallen well behind, though their influence may become crucial if the leadership primary goes to a second, runoff vote.

Mr Mofaz has cast himself as the guardian of Israel’s security and openly questions whether Ms Livni is prepared for 3am telephone calls requiring quick but complex defence decisions.

But, while Mr Mofaz is said to have strong support from the party’s grassroots, Ms Livni’s supporters have been more vocal during this campaign.

At a Kadima meeting to toast the Jewish New Year last week, Ms Livni entered the hotel ballroom in a Tel Aviv suburb to a crush of television cameras and chants of “Tzipi Livni! Who is coming? Our next prime minister!”

Smiling, with the occasional toss of her blunt-cut hair, she moved slowly through the room, shaking hands and posing for pictures with rank-and-file members. Still, she was clearly uncomfortable with the attention and awkward in her embraces, finally cutting the show of warmth short to take her seat.

Her supporters maintain that she will reconnect Israelis with their leaders and help dispel the growing sense that all politicians are corrupt.

Yoel Hassonm also a Kadima MP, said: “When you go into the street, you feel that Tzipi Livni is a new hope.”

Ms Livni and Mr Olmert are bitter rivals personally but politically see eye to eye on most fronts; the two even exchanged an awkward handshake before Mr Olmert’s gave what may prove his valedictory address to Kadima loyalists last week.

On Syria, however, Ms Livni’s policy is a clear departure and comes despite Mr Olmert’s direct pleas to continue the indirect negotiations.

“These negotiations provide a very serious opportunity to reach peace,” Mr Olmert said in an address Thursday night. “I didn’t promise [Syrian] President [Bashar] Assad anything. What I said was, ‘I know what you want, you know very well what I want. Let’s sit down and talk about it.'”

Despite all campaign promises, Wednesday’s leadership primary may come down to who shows up to vote: with a one-member, one-vote system and what some see as a suspicious 70,000 brand-new members in Kadima’s first ever leadership contest, the winner may simply be the best organised candidate.

“We don’t have a clue what will develop in the very short time we are left with before the vote,” said Tamar Hermann, a political scientist and pollster. “I tend to believe many people who are eligible to vote in the Kadima primary have not made up their minds yet.”

Still, Ms Livni’s team is working hard for a first-round victory, for fear a more drawn-out campaign will only weaken Kadima and send the country into early elections. All polls suggest an early election would be easily won by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, which has pledged to end the US-backed Palestinian peace talks in favour of joint economic projects.

“Israel needs to have a steady government. To change it every two years is not a good thing,” said cabinet minister and Kadima member Gideon Ezra, who has also endorsed Ms Livni. “It’s very important for her to win in the first round because it will give more power to the party, and to her.”

You actually mean Norman that Syria’s real face is showing in that it is not willing to make any sacrifice for peace.

Do you usually tell people that won’t give you things for free that there is something wrong with them? Do you understand the concept of negotiation and that Syria will have to give somethings in exchange for the Golan?

The real face of Israel is not Israelis who don’t want peace. It is an Israel with weak amateur leaders. I’ve never built too much expectation on Livni. She is less experienced than anyone almost (including that buffoon “peace-for-peace” Mofaz). While it is very difficult, and probably wrong, to judge anyone by their words, especially before the primaries or general elections, when you hear Livni saying something like: “In order to show that they are serious enough, they need to stop what they are doing right now, in supporting all these terrorist activities in the region.”, you understand that the lady knows nothing about business or politics.

As hard as it may be right now to watch the talks freeze or end, we must have patience. Even if a theoretical peace agreement could have been delivered to Knesset or Israel in a few months, it would have been done by a weak leader. Neither Olmert, nor Livni, can deliver peace (just like Abu Mazen can’t). We need stronger leaders for that and, as you and I know, it is unfortunately probably only Netanyahu… Whether he’s ready for peace or not, I don’t know. But again, we must be careful not to judge him by his pre-elections rhetoric.

I posted a link here to an older interview with Charlie Rose in which Livni said the same thing .. that she wants Syria to first show goodwill (by cutting relations with Iran etc) THEN Israel will talk.

Besides, peace with Syria today is not popular among most Israelis. I did not expect Livni (or Mofaz) to champion that cause before elections.

Good to see SC up again. Yes, Livni, Mofaz, Dichter, all cannot afford to speak about peace now. Only Meir Sheetrit was bold enough to say exactly what was necessary of peace. But, he’s of course not popular enough even in Kadima.

Israelis today are more worried about their security than about peace. They want peace, but don’t understand how it comes about. They don’t understand that peace you make with enemies, even bitter enemies, and not with puppets who show “goodwill” by giving in their cards, BEFORE we talk peace. You can have someone want something, yet not know how to achieve it. That’s why you need leaders…

To all those who fancy Livni’s looks, sorry. I doubt she’ll become Israel’s next PM. She, unlike Sarah Palin, isn’t sweeping half of Israel off their feet…

i do not think there will be a move toward peace between Syria and Israel any time soon and that Israel is just playing on the emotions of the peace loving people , I watched the Mideast for a long time and it is always the same like a woman who is going through in vitro fertilization , HOPE TO DESPAIR , HOPE TO DESPAIR and so on .

I agree we should be careful not to hop on this emotional rollercoaster ride. But… we are human after all, aren’t we? And we do want (and need) peace so desperately, don’t we? I’m trying to remain patient, more than anything else, and not to get too frustrated. But I don’t subscribe to this notion of “Israel is just playing…” There is no such thing as “Israel” when it comes to some historic and ongoing policy. With the exception of maybe Peres (and even that can be argued), no Israeli leader has ever followed in the footsteps of his predecessor. Olmert is not a good example, because he was too weak. By now, Sharon would have pulled out of the West Bank already twice. There isn’t some “hidden policy” amongst Israeli politicians that says “play on the emotions of peace loving people”, and then “do the opposite”. Though that sometimes seems to be the mantra, I can tell you it is out of foolishness, and not out of planning.

The chances are 50/50 .. worth trying, without disappointment if nothing happened.

If it does not work out, there will be Israelis and Americans who will argue that Syria played on their emotions and was only interested in the peace process, not in peace. They will site Sarkozy’s opening to Syria and Michael young will write again saying to Sarkozy “you see? I told you you were stupid to believe the Syrians”

Shai,
Ok so now Livni is stupid and understands nothing about business or politics. Where do you get this stuff? I have many years experience in business and Livni knows exactly what she is talking about. The Syrians have to prove they can deliver. Unless of course you like the Mofaz peace for peace plan. I am find with that.

You seem to think that Israelis are really stupid and that you are the only one that understands what is going on.

Do you know the joke about a man who calls his wife and says: Be careful! I just heard on the radio that there is a car going against the direction of the traffic on the highway. The wife answers: What do you mean one car!!! All the cars are going in the wrong direction.

Shai, Israel is a democracy. If you cannot convince anyone either improve your arguments or accept that they are flawed. Labeling your compatriots as idiots is going to get you nowhere.

Zenobia,
Ok, Israelis and Americans are idiots. Given what these two peoples have achieved relative to the Arabs, what does this make Arabs according to your opinon?

Maybe a better explanation is that all over the world people have an average IQ of 100 and are not idiots but simply their views and values differ from yours? How about embracing pluralism instead of ridiculing people with different opinions?

AIG said: “Shai, Israel is a democracy. If you cannot convince anyone either improve your arguments or accept that they are flawed.”

No Israeli leader, of any party whatsoever, has EVER required our enemies to first become democracies. So, AIG, have YOU “improved your arguments or accepted that they are flawed”??? 🙂

I don’t think Livni is an idiot (I think Mofaz is). Livni is inexperienced, both in leadership, and in politics. With your diplomatic “skills”, I’m not particularly impressed with your “business experience”. I have yet to meet a good businessman who has such poor diplomatic skills.

I am sick and tired of your championing of Netanhayu. It is disgusting in the extreme. And you have totally pushed your theory of a ‘peace of the strong’ so far beyond reality that it is becoming a delusion of yours. It is actually impossible for you to continue to claim that you advocate peace when you continue your love fest for Netanyahu.

For a simple counter-example, I should become the world’s #1 cheerleader of Ahmedinejad. By your logic, only when the world is filled with rabid and violent (though, Netanyahu is far more violent than Ahmedinejad) ideologues, can there be true peace…. Your logic is total and utter bullsh&t and it exposes the emptiness of your commitment to “peace”.

Please, cut it out. It is so artificial, so ridiculous, that you are getting dangerously close to the likes of AIG (even his last post started to make sense for once) or the other rabid zionist fanatics that poison this blog.

Zenobia,
I would love to apply it globally. However, certain countries like Syria resist. Once all countries in the world are a democracy, we can move to a global EU or US model.

You can ridicule as much as you want. What I am really lecturing you about is that deep down you do not accept democratic principles. You seem to think that some people (the not idiots) should get to vote while others (the idiots) should not get to vote and decide.

Shai,
The first difference between us is that I do not call my compatriots idiots. I respect their opinion and it is true that I have both to improve my argument and to get it out there more. The second difference is that your argument on the other hand has been discussed in Israel for decades, and pushed by the left, and it has been soundly rejected by Israeli people. Very very few people in Israel believe that we should give the Golan just because according to you, it belongs to Syria. No, most Israelis believe that Syria should deliver concrete and tangible things in exchange for the Golan.

Joe,
Israel is a vibrant democracy and Palestine one day will be one also if its people so choose. The Palestinians in the West Bank are not Israeli citizens. One day, hopefully soon, they will be citizens of a democratic Palestine.

But lets not get into the same argument we have had before. I think what you write about Shai is right on. I am happy to see that not only AP and myself find his thinking illogical.

“At the very end of his article Alpher writes: “True, there are a few Israeli Jews on the fringes of society who either advocate or would comply in a one-state solution. They include anti-Zionist Leftists and ultra-orthodox. […] I would not recommend to Palestinians that they rely on these fringe Jews as potential partners.”

As an Anti-Zionist Leftist (who use to be also ultra-orthodox), I would like to plead guilty to the “fringe-charge.” Here too it is a matter of history, maybe even genetics! All my ancestors were on the fringe of society. During Nazi occupation, my father was doubly on the fringe: against his will, as a Jew, and by choice, as an anti-Nazi Resistance fighter. In every society where evil is committed, the Just are, at the beginning, a tiny fringe-minority… until they become, or not, a majority. Like former German Canceller Willy Brand said it once, testifying about himself: “there is a time where to have to disconnect from the majority, and to choose to be a minority, even to be perceived as a traitor to your own country.”

Majority and fringe are dynamic realities: in the seventies and the beginning of the eighties, while Alpher was, as usual, the majority, we were a fringe-minority to advocate the recognition of the PLO and a Palestinian state. Later on, these positions became majority-positions, and Alpher joined them. As Sari Nusseibeh said in his interview, the one-state solution may become soon the only option on the table for an Israeli-Palestinian peace. I bet that Yossi Alpher will oppose it… until the majority of the Israelis will change their mind and understand that they have missed the two-state option, and only a joint democratic and bi-national state will guarantee their personal and national existence in this area.”

Zenobia,
How about that in order to show you are sincere, you apply it to the same extent that Israel has applied it? So in Syria, the Arabs will have the same rights as the Jews in Israel and vice versa. Do we have a deal?

And yes, until all countries are democracies, how can we apply a world democracy?

Take a deep breath. I hope that as an educated man, you are also open to the notion that others may have ways that work, no less than yours. Be careful not to fall in love too much with your own thesis, and to rule out so bluntly others’.

If I thought that by electing Ahmadinejad I’d create a better chance for peace in the Middle East, I would vote for him, as an Israeli. As much as you hate Netayahu (and let me be quite clear about this, I dislike the man, and have no “love fest” for him), there are a few facts which I’m sure you’re ignoring. For one, while talking anti-peace, he sent his best friend in the U.S. to offer Hafez Assad (directly) a complete withdrawal from the Golan. This is not speculation, this is well documented, and you know it. Despite swearing to never shake the hand of “that terrorist” Arafat, Netanyahu not only shook it, but even kissed the man on his cheek, on numerous occasions, and referred to him as “a friend”. Despite swearing never to withdraw from the West Bank, Netanyahu was one of the first PM’s to hand over control of major cities to the Palestinians.

So Joe M., with all due respect, it is precisely YOUR closed mindedness that leads you to say to me: “Your logic is total and utter bullsh&t and it exposes the emptiness of your commitment to ‘peace’.” Who are YOU, to suggest anything about my commitment to peace? What are YOU doing, on this forum, or any other, to create peace? Besides preaching about the evils of Israel (which you know I agree with), have you anything positive to say to anyone? Can you not fathom the political absurdity in Israel, and why it is that only leaders from the Right have been able to deliver peace? Or are you expecting some miracle of God, or of Joe M.’s, to suddenly appear in Israel?

You know what, I’m beginning to suspect that you’re not interested in peace, unless it’s YOUR peace. And “your peace”, is only done through Justice, not through compromise. It’s only done by an Israeli leader that is weeping from emotion and deep sorrow as he signs that peace of paper, and not by a cunning politician who merely wants the fame and glamour. Well, Joe M., I continue to be disappointed in you. Your version of real-politique seems to be overly influenced by your personal emotions, than by reality. If that is the case, your ability to influence anyone or anything is, in my mind, nil.

also, i am not sure about your comparison…since “like the jews in Israel” might be more similar… to allowing only part of the population of syria to be citizens… and shoving the rest of the people into a small section of the country and basically calling it not Syria, but we rule over it anyway and you aren’t citizens… so on and so forth…

so, i would rather that Syria aspire to something… “sincere” as you would say…

You can’t claim to be a democrat and then go around selecting who gets to vote on the basis that they agree with your worldview! By your standards, the KKK were model democrats!

Palestinians are under the dominion of Israel, the have no government, they have no rights, Israel is in full military control of their land, their water, their building rights, even their beliefs and writings. They live totally under the domain of the Israel, without other nationality or a place to go. By all normal human standards, Israel has an obligation to allow those it governs to become citizens and vote. Since it does not, it has no right to claim itself as a democracy. Jews(and zionists) are not even the majority in Israel.

But I do agree generally, I did not intend to have this discussion any further, I was just typically sickened by your empty rhetoric for “democracy”.

I don’t know who your last comment was aimed at (I hope AIG). But I will not put myself on the defensive with you. I don’t owe you anything. My only humble suggestion to you is, to get off your pompous horse, and start realizing the world has different ways of working, not only Joe M.’s ways. Instead of criticizing me, take off your shades of “knowledge” for a single moment, put yourself in my shoes, and tell me who you’d vote for. And when you do, try your hardest to be realistic about polls taken in Israel, about the current party leaders, and about what might be smart, not right.

Shai,
The comment was for AIG, I didn’t think you would write so quickly.

And we can get to it in the abstract, or in the specific, I am willing to discuss it either way. But let me point out some major problems with what you just said.

The first and most obvious is the irony in your argument for Netanyahu’s on the basis of his dismantlement of the positive achievements from Oslo as being a sign that he is a potential peace maker. You can’t simply say he shook Arafat’s hand while ignoring the context of the handshake. And you well know that it was a major step backwards from an already flawed agreement, in no way a sign of peace….

But without going on about the problems I have with Netanyahu as a policy maker, let me deal with your more substantive point. First your view of peace through strength, and second my view of peace more generally (you know my specific view is a one state solution).

In this respect I agree with AIG, and I find it absurd that you claim that to want there to be strong leaders. Because I don’t have any idea how there can be strong leaders without there being military parity. So what if the Palestinians have the world’s greatest leaders? What strength does that give a leader? To lead a subjugated, occupied people with no way to enforce their rights or power? Hamas was elected with a 65% majority in the Parliament, yet they had no power. All their West Bank leaders were immediately arrested. So who do you believe Netanyahu will be negotiating with to apply this principle you seem to love? And even Syria, Egypt, Jordan… all the Arab states…. Given the military imbalance, I don’t see any likelihood of any peace deal being struck any time soon. Ok, So on the other hand, what happens when there is closer balance of military power, when both sides can “defend” themselves? Is Israel any closer to peace with Hizbullah today than before? Would Netanyahu be closer to peace with Hizbullah than Barak? I think not. As a theory, your ideology might sound interesting, but it is a total failure practically. You take an elementary concept and try to expand it, but in the end it leads to cruelty and failure….

As for my view of peace, yes, I do not think there will be peace without justice. Maybe some level of an absence of war, but truth is that there is largely an absence of war now, even though we are technically at war. War, as destructive as it is, can not be endless, humans can’t take it. And many Palestinians and many Israelis know this very well. Many have given up, and many have simply accepted the status quo… that is a fact. Hell, most Israelies has so much internalized this that they don’t even know the Palestinians exist. When you talk about “peace” without justice as it’s core, you are fundamentally talking about fossilizing epic injustice. Like had the concentration camps been left open and the people of Poland and Germany simply asked the Jews to deal with the realities (maybe, minus the mass killings) for the sake of pragmatism… It is ridiculous.

Lastly, I don’t give a damn about any piece of paper signed, and I will never believe in one. But, for me, peace can only be achieved by destroying the concept that Jews have exclusive domain over “Israel”. I do not think there can be peace with a Zionist state. Whether there is weeping or not, I don’t care. But as long as Israel believes that it can claim exclusive domain to the land of Palestine, I will not believe there can be peace. Personally, I think this can be done a little bit at a time, rather than through some idiotic ceremony at the White House Rose Garden. By giving Palestinians more rights, more freedoms, more access to Israel and their former homes and lands. And eventually the “demographic threat” will become enough of a reality to force the issue. I am tired of everyone believing in some ridiculous event to prove that love has broken out in the world…. I don’t see any way to solve this conflict other than slowly, and by forcing the Jews to deal with the reality that they live with us Palestinians (and not just on top of us). I don’t expect Israelis to become moral or to have sympathy. And I don’t think all will be well tomorrow. I would rather see small but real steps (like granting more rights to Palestinians in Israel), than some bullsh&t handshake…

You should vote for Palestinian parties. Why would anyone vote on the basis of polls unless they were too weak to stand for what they believe?

In case that early paragraph was not clear, the handshake Shai refers to was at the Wye river accords. Netanyahu’s crowning achievement in burying the Oslo agreement (though I didn’t support Oslo, it didn’t have to be as bad as Netanyahu made it).

Zenobia,
You cannot influence anything in Syria, that is the whole point. In fact the citizens of Syria have no influence on their government. I have influence over my government as do 7 million people living in “Palestine”. When 7 million people in Syria get to elect the government like in Israel, let me know. You and Joe want to fault Israel, instead of solving the problem? Fine let’s not repeat that argument again.

Let’s not argue if Israeli democracy is good enough. I will categorically state that when 7 million Syrians or more out of 18 million have the same rights and are able to elect their government like the 7 million citizens of Israel, I will be the first to support giving back the Golan to Syria as a gesture of goodwill.

Queen Zenobia,thanks for the article ,Sari Bey Nusseibeh as usual is speaking the truth ,two state solution is not a solution.
We should think a new formula and i see no other than the one state solution in which jews and arabs are equals in rights and duties.

So there you have it folks, directly from Joe’s mouth. There will be peace only when there is no Jewish state. I on the other hand think there will be peace when Arabs accept a Jewish state in the middle east. There is really not much to do but to wait and see which comes first.

AIG,
As you know, I am generally sympathetic to your view of democracy. Of course, with many differences. While I know you use the word “democracy” as an excuse and a backwards justification of Israel’s violence, I do agree that democracy should be a very high priority generally. But let me add this:

Democracy doesn’t only come in the form of voting. I would be happy to see a democracy of military power in the Middle East, for example. Further, Hizbullah is far more democratic in terms of how it represents its constituents than any of the political parties in Israel.

Further, when you try to argue that your view of “democracy” will lead Arabs to peace with Israel, I strongly disagree. As you well know, it is typically the undemocratic governments that prevent large-scale social action by Arabs, and often for the protection of Israel and themselves.

Karim,
First make the solution you propose work in Syria and prove that Arabs can live together in a democracy and then maybe I will start to believe you that Jews and Arabs can live together peacefully in a democracy where there is the same number of people in both camps.

Don’t you see how unrealistic your suggestion is? The Arabs cannot live in peace and in democracy with each other even in ONE Arab country, yet you think that Jews and Arabs that have been fighting for 100 years could easily live together in one democratic and liberal country. It is just another way for destroying Israel. Even Belgium cannot stay united. But the Likud and the Hamas will get together fine. Please stop treating us as idiots.

Joe,
Hizballah officials are not elected and Narallah is not accountable to any of the people he represents. You are way off with this comparison. Israeli politicians are accountable and can get kicked out, unlike Nasrallah who has a job for life.

Once there are regimes in Arab countries that are accountable to their people there will not immediately be peace, but there will be no war. An administration that will initiate a war with Israel will inevitably lose the next election because no sane person votes for politicians that fight useless wars. An adminstration that will support terrorist groups will suffer from economic sanctions and will be voted out by the citizens that see how this policy actually hurts them. Eventually, democracy will lead from no war to peace.

I think you are unrealistic in the extreme. You, like AIG, think time is on our side (let’s assume, for a moment, that you and I are on the same side). You state, correctly, that “… this can be done a little bit at a time, rather than through some idiotic ceremony at the White House Rose Garden.” I completely agree. The ceremony doesn’t bring about peace. It’s what follows that does.

But then you suggest that instead of that “idiotic ceremony”, we can reach peace “By giving Palestinians more rights, more freedoms, more access to Israel and their former homes and lands.” This is your mistake. You think the Palestinians will get MORE right? MORE freedoms? MORE access to Israel? How on earth??? We are building more and more settlements in the West Bank. Despite court rulings, almost NO illegal settlement has ever been eradicated. Following the stabbing of a settler-child, an entire Jewish settlement mobilizes a group of extremists who take the law into their own hand, and go on a demolition spree through an Arab village. And Israeli police, or even army, do nothing! So you want MORE right? When??? And how??? Who on earth will give it to them? A more pragmatic Israeli government? Haven’t we tried every kind of “pragmatic” leadership, for the past 40 years? Where will this “little bit at a time” progress you speak of, take place? On this planet? Who are you kidding?

Joe M., the only way to force Israel to change its ways is through peace. An artificial peace, an idiotic peace, an irresponsible peace, an unjust peace, a whatever-the-hell peace you like. Yes, even an unsupported-by-Joe.M-peace. Do you honestly think Israelis and Arabs will suddenly fall in love with each other, after watching two leaders sign a peace of paper? Of course not. But since it is impossible for Israel to now make peace with the Palestinians, or to deliver any kind of agreement of any sort (which is agreed upon bilaterally), there is only one option, which may prove helpful in the long run. That option is Syria. If we end the state of war with Syria, return the Golan Heights, and have Syria stop weapons delivery to Hezbollah, perhaps Israelis would be willing to have Syria help us talk to Hamas. This is the only way to hope for more rights and freedoms for the Palestinians.

You are completely off base in your understanding of the perception of power in the Middle East. You are also incorrect in assuming that if a side to the conflict becomes powerful, then necessarily the other will opt to make peace with it. With Syria, this assumption was true only for Olmert. But with Hezbollah, it wasn’t. Israel will never “make peace” with Hezbollah, like it won’t with Hamas. It’ll make peace one day with Lebanon, which may be represented, amongst others, by members of Hezbollah. And the same with Palestine. There are only two ways which MIGHT force Israel to talk to Hamas – either ongoing Intifadas that continue to take a heavy toll, or peace with a partner that can be trusted by both sides. Maybe Syria can serve that purpose. I believe that it can. I certainly see no reason NOT to make peace with Syria. Not to do that “idiotic handshake”. Unlike you, I believe it will at least give a much better chance at ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, in a way that neither Egypt nor Jordan could.

Isn’t it sad that you, the Palestinian, are willing to wait, while I, the Israeli, am not? Your people are suffering in indescribable ways, and you want to wait? My way offers no guarantees, but it offers a chance. Your way, I’m afraid, offers nothing but continued suffering for your people. Try to think about that, before you so harshly dismiss my “total and utter bullsh&t” logic.

AIG,you are right and that’s the reason we have such regimes in the arab world,i believe that there is a hidden hand who support them and the Israeli hand is the stronger one.
Democracy in the arab will make the arabs more credible, that’s why the zionist ideologists prefer to live with Bashar ,Kadafi and Mubarak than to face democratic regimes which represent 350 millions and who will be 500 millions in the next few years.
Is that normal that in Senegal and several other countries of Africa ,they have a democracy and no one of the 22 arab countries is democratic ?

dear AIG,
If all the Syrians in Syria could vote, if their their will could actually be realized, … I am sorry to say, overwhelmingly, they would vote Israel out of the Middle East.
So be very careful what you wish for.

Karim,
How is Israel stopping democracy in Syria? It is not.
And you are way off base on this issue. Most Israelis would love to see democracies emerge in the middle east. That is STRONGLY in Israel’s interest. It is not against our interest as you think. In fact this is at the CORE of the neo-conservative strategy: Democracy in the middle east will make Israel stronger.

Zenobia,
Let them vote that, as long as they have the same rights in Syria as I have in Israel, I don’t care. We in Israel can surely get a huge majority to vote that Hizballah should disarm. Will it help us much?

There are a lot of wildly unreconciled views being bandied about.
the summary:

Joe M. believes that peace will be achieve through the barrel of a gun when everybody has equal amounts of them.

Shai believes peace will be achieved when everyone puts down their guns.

AIG believes that peace will be achieved as soon as you hand enough people a ballot and they will mysteriously drop their guns as a result and not vote for war (something that is clearly proved a mistaken conclusion based on the evidence in the United States).

I am not sure what I believe yet. But I think that Karim just pointed out that the Israelis who want to keep their power and don’t care about peace- do better without democracy prevailing in the arabs states, for the guns are pointed at their own people.

Shai,
Don’t you realize that any side that can make peace with Israel will not be supported by the people of that side (unless Israel makes drastic changes). It is not a matter of politicians, it is a matter of real change. And Israel has always been the more powerful party, able to do whatever it likes with the conflict (including make genuine peace). But that it has not is not for lack of trying by Arabs (as you know), but because Israel simply does not want peace enough to make the necessary changes. If Syria decides to shake hands with Israel, they will become exactly like Egypt and Jordan. The fact that they have not shaken hands with Israel is the only reason they have decent relations with Hamas and Hizbullah.

When you say “Israel will never “make peace” with Hezbollah, like it won’t with Hamas.” You are essentially saying that Israel will only make peace with those who have already surrendered. Of course, this is again showing the irony of your arguing about peace through strength…

You claim you are not willing to wait, but if my people were in the position of power, demanding that the other side submit, it would be rather easy for me to claim I was in a hurry to make peace (another example is how the USA treats Iran in the nuclear issue. The American can easily claim they want peace, but the facts don’t bear that). When I talk about peace, I am talking about real peace. And I find no reason to lie to myself that any agreement will yield that.

“Joe M. believes that peace will be achieve through the barrel of a gun when everybody has equal amounts of them.”

Zenobia,

I wouldn’t say this is wrong about my view, I simply would not restrict myself only to this. And, in the situation we are dealing with, it seems there are more guns than not. yet, guns create a power imbalance that no ballot can correct. I feel I am being pragmatic when I argue for a democracy of violence, cause that is the world in which we live. In my younger days I used to argue purely for the views of Gandhi. My beliefs are wide ranging, but my experience tells me not to be so dogmatic and only advocate the most beautiful theory…

AIG, your theory, if I can call it that is completely unsubstantiated anywhere in the middle east. When the Pals voted, they voted for the most militant party in their society to continue to wage a resistance and violence against the Israeli State.
why is it that you don’t think that might happen in other arab countries as well?

i think you are under some delusion that the ONLY reason that the arab peoples are angry and blaming of Israel is because they are distracted by their leaders. Even if the fact of the displacement of much anger onto Israel is real, and even if the regimes exploit this to their own advantage, as a total hypothesis, it is very simplistic and delusional a belief.
That was my point, if Syrian could vote, they would vote to resist, most of them. You are counting on the fact that they won’t vote to attach Israel because they can’t militarily win.
but your reasoning therefore is just a flip side or a corollary or something or other of Joe M.’s . In that , he is saying… more guns will mean the people of the arab states and particularly the Palestinians can militarily fight and that they will….

you are only counting on your military might being superior. However, where has that gotten Israel really…in all this time…
The economic success and relative success of Israel has been achieved despite the costs … of endless war… but your patron is fast becoming very weak… and who knows if you can always.. have your way… in the future.

Zenobia,
War between Israel and Syria is not the “war” that US fights and Americans vote for. This is not some war 7000 miles away in a far continent. The war is close up and personal and has DIRECT implications on people. Ask the people of Lebanon and the people of northern Israel and the communities around Gaza what war is. Ask the Palestinians in Gaza.

Let’s say Lebanon was a democracy and the Lebanese government decided to kidnap Israeli soldiers leading to Lebanon suffering like it did in the July 2006. What do you think? Would that Lebanese government be re-elected? Let’s say a democratic Syrian government decided to allow anyone to attack Israel from the Syrian border leading to major damadge to Syrian infrastructure and a huge economic rececssion in Syria. Would that government be re-elected? I beleive not. Accountability has sobering effects. In Israel, any government that fights a war that the public does not deem necessarry will be very quickly voted out of power. I think this will the same case in Arab countries.

Zenobia,
If Hamas were really accountable and could be voted out, instead of actually becoming dictators themselves, they would have acted in a completely different manner than they did. The key here is accountability. Hamas pursued their uncompromising ideology exactly because they did not see themselves as accountable to their voters. This is the case of one man one vote one time instead of a true democracy.

My theory works not only if Israel is militarily superior but also if both sides are equally strong and any war would result in a stalemate except for the huge economic costs for both sides.

The difference between us, is that you don’t believe that a superficial peace with Syria can lead to anything good. You’ve decided already that it can’t. You’ve decided that it is just like Egypt and Jordan. And I haven’t.

You also completely dismiss the possibility that someone (Israelis) may wish for peace, yet not know how to bring it about. Israelis do not think like you, Joe M. They never will. To do so, they will have to develop empathy. In one of our few exchanges, you finally admitted that it looks like the two-state solution will have to come first. So what is that, if not a compromise? What is that, if not TRUE peace? What is that, if not “surrendering” by the Palestinians, according to your own methodology?

You are an idealist, not a realist. And when you look through an idealist’s goggles, you do see Israel as demanding total surrender. But I see other options, and ones which start us on the path towards “true peace”. It is indeed a long and arduous path. But by waiting for justice to happen, we are both delaying joining it, and most probably elongating it by years or decades more. Your rationale for dismissing Netanyahu is similar to AIG’s rationale for dismissing Assad. You both want to wait for “angels”, who will fight for justice for all. So wait.

I am not sure if you noticed aig, but… in the US we have 4000 soldiers dead and about 20,000 without limbs or substantial brain damage. And we are pretty much sick of it… and interested in calling it quits..cause it interrupts our nice placid and comfortable lives if we all had to sacrifice equally…

however, the entire south of Lebanon and the southern suburbs of beirut were demolished by bombs….
and the Lebanese of the south are still ‘voting’ in some sense to kick your ass.
and the Gazans are starving and living in their own sewage… and are still not entirely broken by Israel.

a bunch of men in “man jammies” as the grunts like to call them in Afghanistan are so far also kicking the american’s ass,

so… what is the conclusion really? about this great strategy of subduing the middle east into… accepting your or the US’s will.

I think you are killing yourself frankly. Even the USA…grand as it is…is roting from the inside… at this very moment. We are going to be living in temperatures unseen so far in world history…if this bullshit keeps up…and we don’t change our priorities.

well… there is going to be another election in the the land of Palestine within a year . So, we will see if your theory that Hamas will be held accountable and democratically punished for its reckless waring ways bares out.

as for now, I have to go to sleep.
so it has been a pleasure as usual…and goodnight to all… and good morning as well of course.

So should I support Ahmedi-Nejad and claim he has the potential to make peace?

You must not understand that Egypt and Jordan are Egypt and Jordan BECAUSE they made peace with Israel and decided to become puppet states of the USA. If Syria were to make peace with Israel, it would have no choice but to do the same…

And you must have misunderstood my previous comments (though, I don’t know what you are specifically referring to). I do think it is possible that there will be a “two-state solution”, but see it exactly as I see Oslo or the current situation. In fact, I could easily argue that there currently is a “two-state solution”. Netanyahu (and Kadima and part of Likud) are simply trying to formalize the status quo, rather than work for a more legitimate “two-state solution”.

I may be an idealist, but the realists have failed our conflict. They are the pragmatists who have compromised, who have signed agreements, who have claimed to be negotiating for peace…. The seduction of power and pragmatism is one of the leading reasons that we are still in this mess…

Yet I would be willing to be more pragmatic if we had some legitimate signs of peace. I am not going to be like Abu Mazin and call Bush a great man just to prove how pragmatic I am. That is not pragmatism, that is surrender.http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1020725.html

I will add, I think Nasrallah is both an idealist and a pragmatist. And although I don’t believe any one leader can fundamentally change this conflict, I do think he represents hope for our region. I would like to see Hizbullah copied and emulated throughout, if possible. It might not lead immediately to peace, but such social movements as Hizbullah are very important factors to bringing peace ultimately…

I agree that Abu Mazen is a puppet, and therefore we cannot make peace with him. Peace can only be made between enemies, even bitter enemies. Between people that until yesterday wanted to destroy one another. Wanted to cause the other to surrender, to disappear, to succumb to “our ways”. Don’t opt for peace between Yossi Beilin and Hanniyeh, opt for one between Liebermann the racist, and Hanniyeh. But we know that won’t happen. So what’s possible then?

On my side, Israel, I think the only person that MIGHT be able to deliver peace seems to be Netanyahu. Personally, I detest the man. I have almost nothing in common with him. But the absurd is that neither Barak nor Livni can deliver any agreement whatsoever. They will never receive the support of 50.1% of Israelis. Netanyahu, like Begin and like Sharon, can. Do I like it? NO! Do I think it’s right? NO! Do I wish it was different? YES! When I think 10-15 years down the line, with continued weak Israeli governments, do I see a Palestinian people with more freedom or less? LESS! Do I see a more stable Middle East, or less? LESS!

Don’t talk to me about optimal solutions, talk about realistic solutions. Don’t tell me what you’d like to see, tell me what you’re choosing out of the existing alternatives. I’d also like to gamble on peace, by electing Yossi Beilin. But it would be a poor gamble, and a foolish one. You needn’t be a genius to see what kind of support he gets inside Israel. I wish justice could be served tomorrow morning. In fact, I wish we really could have my fantasy UME right away. But we can’t. To get there, we must choose between bad compromises. If we’re smart, we’ll choose the least-bad one. Superficial peace, to me, is such a choice right now. Can Bibi bring about such a peace? YES! Will he? I have no idea, but I suspect that he will. From a purely Israeli point of view, both Labor and Kadima have failed Israel miserably. The Likud has not had a chance to “destroy” these past 8 years, like the Left and Center have. So the democratic thing to do, is give it a chance.

And if I’m wrong, and if Bibi will only bring about further suffering to the region, then we’re probably headed for war. And maybe in the end, that’s what will finally bring Israelis to change, like they did after 1973. But by sitting on our asses and waiting for an angel to appear, and by not electing Netanyahu because of how we feel towards him, we are undoubtedly going to contribute to far greater suffering for the people of our region (Palestinians first and foremost). Remember, even Sharon, the Butcher-of-Lebanon, withdrew from Gaza, and was going to withdraw from the West Bank. Don’t disregards things, because it’s uncomfortable to do so.

We will just have to wait and see. But I am quite confident that after 2 and 1/2 years of a fractured Likud government, you will be begging for Labor once again. But there is no need to discuss it further. let time prove one of us wrong….

In’shalla, let time prove both of us right. I just wish you were more open to understanding my side. Do you think I’m going to enjoy voting Bibi? I will hate myself for doing so, while knowing it’s the only chance I believe we have, at this point in time. Btw, I am certainly NOT begging for Labor as it is today. It is full of impotent dinosaur politicians, that care more about their volvos than about their party, or their country. Young men and women are trying to get in, but cannot have a chance, because the dinosaurs rule, and won’t let go. Personally, I hope Labor comes crashing down in the next elections (10-12 seats maximum), forcing their voters to look deep down inside, and hopefully pressure the top 6-8 politicians out. Barak, of course, first among them. He has disappointed everyone more than I can express. I will support a rebirth of Labor, if and when I see it can occur. Until then, I must choose between other bad alternatives.

The most bogus argument made by some people here is that “Israel” is a democracy. And when faced with the way “Israel” treats Palestinians, the most bogus reasoning they can come up with is that Palestinians are not citizens of “Israel” so they should not count in assessing the democratic standing of “Israel”. The fact of the matter is that “Israel” occupies and controls all lands on which Palestinians live. Palestinian lives are fully controled by “Israel”. Yet, these Palestinians are not given any say in determining the shape and form of the government of “Israel”. This is a classic example of a racist, undemocratic, colonial entity.

“Israel” claims that lands on which most Palestinians live today are not part of “Israel” proper and therefore those residents cannot be deemed “Israeli” citizens or even residents of “Israel.” However, at the same time, “Israel” finds it completely justified to expropriate their land, build settlements, and install Jewish “Israeli” citizens in their territory who have full and equal rights to all other Jewish “Israeli” citizens. Basically, “Israel” wants to have it both ways. It wants to continue to expropriate land in territory that is according to them not part of “Israel,” and to continue to build settlements and install Jewish colonies there, while refusing to grant Palestinians in those territories any rights because those Palestinians are not “Israeli” citizens. All this while it hypocritically presents itself as a symbol and champion of democracy and democratic values.

In addition, even those Palestinians who were granted “Israeli” citizenship and live in the areas “Israelis” claim are part of “Israel,” do not enjoy equal rights to Jewish “Israeli” citizens. Those so-called “citizens” are banned from purchasing land in many areas, as they are considered Jewish only residential areas, they are subject to having their lands confiscated and their homes demolished, and live in a significantly lower economic and social status than Jewish “Israelis”. They are essentially treated as second-class citizens. Of course the hypocrisy of “Israelis” leads them to justify their racism and lack of democracy by drawing comparisons to the situation of citizens of neighboring countries, who are obviously suffering from a wide array of social, political, and economic issues. Although the comparisons are completely misplaced, they do serve a propagandistic purpose, which is to paint “Israel” as a model of freedom and democracy vastly different from its undemocratic neighbors. Of course nothing can be further from the truth. None of the neighboring countries treat any people as “Israel” treats the Palestinians under its control. None of the surrounding entities build settlements for particular groups, expropriate lands of others, demolish homes of specific peoples, establish checkpoints to control the movements of such peoples, etc. And although the stagnancy in economic and social development has resulted in a low standard of living for people in these countries, the discrimination found in “Israel” is unique to the region and is symbolic of the distinctly racist, colonial, and undemocratic nature of the “Israeli” entity.

So Sambo Beat The Bitch!
Posted on Wednesday, September 10 at 14:58 by Janet M Eaton

Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper):

Palin Is “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean”

by Charley James

The Progressive Curmudgeon

September 5, 2008

“So Sambo beat the bitch!”

This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used, Gov. Palin was eating lunch with five or six people when the subject of the Democrat’s primary battle came up. The governor, seemingly not caring that people at nearby tables would likely hear her, uttered the slur and then laughed loudly as her meal mates joined in appreciatively.

“It was kind of disgusting,” Lucille, who is part Aboriginal, said in a phone interview after admitting that she is frightened of being discovered telling folks in the “lower 48” about life near the North Pole.

Then, almost with a sigh, she added, “But that’s just Alaska.”

Racial and ethnic slurs may be “just Alaska” and, clearly, they are common, everyday chatter for Palin.

Besides insulting Obama with a Step-N’-Fetch-It, “darkie musical” swipe, people who know her say she refers regularly to Alaska’s Aboriginal people as “ARCTIC ARABS” – how efficient, lumping two apparently undesirable groups into one ugly description – as well as the more colourful “mukluks” along with the totally unimaginative “f**king Eskimo’s,” according to a number of Alaskans and Wasillians interviewed for this article.

Syria really can not be another Egypt or Jordan. We are too addicted to independence and we will continue to rely on many countries (not only the US) for support. We will continue to have many allies, and we will not become a puppet.

“Syria’s relations with India, however, certainly date back long before Junglee came to Syrian theaters. As early as 1928, Mahatma Gandhi expressed admiration for Syria when he heard—from none other than Jawaharlal Nehru—that Damascus Muslims were protesting a French ban on Faris al-Khury—a Protestant Christian—preventing him from running for parliamentary office.

Gandhi was highly impressed by the coexistence of Syrian society, and Nehru, expressed this during his 1957 and 1960 visits to Damascus, when he paid a courtesy visit to none other than Faris al-Khury, by now an ex-prime minister living in retirement during the years of the United Arab Republic. Nehru wore a red rose on his jacket–a red Damascene rose–which he claimed, made him bright and optimistic.

We are now hearing of a trend to solidify alliances with Russia, China, India, and Malaysia. China has been a friend of Syria since the days of Chang Kai-shek, lobbying on its behalf with his US allies, as early as 1945. Malaysia has always watched with interest the events in Syria.

Mahathir Mohammad, the legendary prime minister of Malaysia, wrote his PhD dissertation on Syria. He studied the free-market policies of the Syrian economy in the 1950s and how it was able to excel in industry, agriculture, trade, and commerce. He wanted to learn from the “Syrian Model” and take a good look at the wonders he did for the Malaysian economy!

The Soviet relationship with Syria is well known to everybody, and dates back to the mid-1940s, when Comrade Joseph Stalin sent an envoy to Damascus and deliberately bypassed the French Mandate authority in Beirut, refusing to attend the July 14 celebrations in Syria. He also insisted that he meet only Syrian officials, to tell the world that the Kremlin recognized Syrian independence from the French. After the French bombed Damascus in May 1945, the USSR used its right of veto—for the first time ever in UN history—to drown an American proposal to delay the withdrawal of French troops from Syria.

After 2005, Syrians devised a policy of ‘heading East’ to show the world that they had alies to lean on—at the lowestpoint of Syrian-American relations— and that the world was not limited to France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United States. However, the Syrians did not need to “head East.” They had been a fundamental part of the East since the days of the Ottoman Empire. We might have snuggled up to the Americans or the French at one point or another, but we never lost our close ties to the East.

They are essentially treated as second-class citizens. Of course the hypocrisy of “Israelis” leads them to justify their racism and lack of democracy by drawing comparisons to the situation of citizens of neighboring countries, who are obviously suffering from a wide array of social, political, and economic issues.

Nour,

Which Arab/Muslim countries are Jews NOT treated as second-class citizens? Which Arab/Muslim countries are Jews, indeed, treated as second-class citizens?

I get it. I get that millions of Americans have a crying need for someone to stand up and say the things that Sarah Palin has been telling them.

I get that many, many Americans are fed up with big government and shame in patriotism and energy dependence and media condescension. I recognize that there are many on the right who are galvanized by a woman addressing the nation in condemnation of gun control and abortions. It’s clear that many in the heartland and even on the Blue State coasts have been waiting years to hear someone take a take-no-prisoners verbal lash to Beltway waste and liberal political correctness and, by implication, to cultural pluralism and tree hugging and the very mention of the word Washington.

But it wasn’t until I got into the taxicab this morning, that I realized what the American voter truly faces this November.

The radio was playing a clip from her ABC News interview, the one in which she was asked about the Bush Doctrine.

The problem was not that she was unacquainted with the doctrine. Millions of Americans are unacquainted with it.

The problem is that Sarah Palin was also asking those millions of Americans to put her first in line for the most important position in humankind.

True, the Bush Doctrine, and the National Security Strategythat contains it, are not a one-sentence, easy to digest credo, and the doctrine is open to many interpretations. Sarah Palin had none of them.

This, despite the doctrine’s contribution to the fact that America is at war, and that Governor Palin’s own son is at war. This is the doctrine that underpins the policy that has had Americans fighting in Iraq two years longer than America fought World War II. And this is the doctrine which will serve as a guide if there is to be war in Iran.

The problem is that John McCain and Barack Obama and Joe Biden have spent years studying the assumptions and the foundations and the consequences of the Bush Doctrine. Governor Palin has not.

Yet Sarah Palin was proud of having had no hesitations, no reservations, no qualms about accepting John McCain’s offer to share the national ticket. It was a matter of ideology with her.

“I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink.

“So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.”

The question about the Bush Doctrine was not a trick. It was not a trivial point designed to make Sarah Palin look bad. It is the summary of a worldview that has guided American foreign and military policy for the seven years since September 11, 2001. It is America’s formal explanation for sending Americans into harm’s way. It is America’s explanation to the world for what America has done.

Even my Israeli cab driver, a non-American through and through, knew more about the Bush Doctrine than Sarah Palin. And that is cause for serious concern.

The cabbie knew, for example, that the doctrine provided for anticipatory self-defense, and pre-emptive strikes to forestall hostile acts even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack.

“This would never have happened in Israel, ever” remarked a journalist friend, referring to the choice of Governor Palin, whose credentials in the realms of foreign policy, statecraft and the military are limited in the extreme.

With irony bordering on the painful, the journalist added, “Sarah Palin has restored my faith in Israel.”

Israel is far from a model of good government, wise policymaking and exemplary leaders. But here, at least, voters and the politicians they make it their business to know inside and out, relate to politics not as if it were a spectacular bowl game or a reality show.but for what politics really is, in America and Israel both: a matter of life and death.

What, at root, are Americans looking for when they see Sarah Palin? A reprieve from their disappointment over elected officials? The prospect of cleaning house and overhauling a wasteful and ineffective Federal bureaucracy? Does she have what it takes to protect and rebuild an American slipping from the First World to the Third?

Or is Sarah Palin, in the end, a diversion, a curiosity, that most pressing of contemporary American needs: an entertainer?

We have little time to make a decision. We have heard McCain and Obama on the campaign trail for what seems like forever. And Biden has been a national figure for decades. Sarah Palin has less than 50 days to prove that she has the intelligence, the humility, the learning ability, and the wisdom to assume the burdens of the commander in chief. We have less than 50 days to learn about her.

George Bush, who spoke incessantly about leadership before his election, has had more than seven years to prove himself a leader, and managed to prove conclusively only that he was not.

This is what is truly frightening about Sarah Palin. There is something in the smugness, the faith-based rigidity, the dismissiveness, that suggests that once again, we may have a national leader who knows better how to divide than to rule.

True, for millions of people, Sarah Palin has lanced a cultural boil.
They feel anger, betrayal, and a profound alienation from the basic institutions of American life. The American dream is receding from them. She has given voice to the ache in their hearts, and, as such, has lifted their spirits.

Sarah Palin has given a voice to people who, even with an ostensibly fundamentalist Republican president in the White House, feel disenfranchised. It is not their Supreme Court, not their Congress. She has done a service for people unhappy with the America that they see. But that does not qualify her to be president.

Governor Palin has suggested that the special interests and superfluous bureaucrats are scared of her and the reforms she and John McCain intend to undertake. One hopes she’s right. But what is certainly scary about Sarah Palin is how little that voters know about her, and in particular, how much she herself recognizes that she needs to learn.

Asked during the interview if she had the ability and the experience to serve as president of the United States, she replied without hesitation, without reservation, without contemplation – and without knowing, on a profound level, what that would, in fact, entail. “I’m ready.”

Here is the answer that is truly frightening. It lets us know that the nation may be in danger of electing another leader bearing the most profound of George Bush’s shortcomings: blindness to one’s own shortcomings.

Blindness, that is, to the breadth and depth and height and shape of what one does not know. Say what you will about Donald Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary knew an unknown unknown when he saw one. Sarah Palin, for whom appearance is understandably significant, has one in her mirror.

Did you read my FB status? … I was mostly disappointed in her supreme confidence in giving definitive answers to very complex scenarios that Chales Gibson threw at her during the ABC interview… despite the fact she obviously knew almost nothing about anything going on outside the borders of her country.

She only got to hear about Georgia last month … yet she said “perhaps so!” when she was asked if she would go to war against Russia!